7 ms·

"We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular

"We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate‐quality evidence. There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non‐fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16, both low‐quality evidence), but effects on total (fatal or non‐fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non‐fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality. There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI." This is your citation for saturated fat is evil?

KempyKolibri 2y ago
I don’t believe saturated fat is evil. I believe that consuming more than 10%E from SFA increases risk of CVD, and replacing SFA with PUFA reduces risk of CVD. And yes, that is my citation in support of that claim. Quote: “There was a 17% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA” and “When we subgrouped according to replacement for SFA, the PUFA replacement group suggested a 21% reduction in cardiovascular events” I explain why the null findings on insensitive endpoints aren’t the gotcha some people think they are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41960046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41960046
- riku_iki 2y ago
  > There was a 17% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA they have table with breakdown of events by type, and in both rows with significant reduction it says that quality of evidence is "very low".
  - KempyKolibri 2y ago
    Don’t know where you’re seeing that. Combined cardiovascular events has an RR of 0.83 and the GRADE quality is moderate, not very low.
    - riku_iki 2y ago
      Yes, and I am talking about subtypes of events in the "summary of findings" table. Those subtypes with "moderate" quality has very insignificant diff in # of events. Those with significant diff in # of events have "very low" quality of evidence.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - KempyKolibri 2y ago
        How would that affect the inference being made here? That is, the claim being made is with regard to combined cardiovascular events. This effect is significant and the GRADE quality is moderate. One of the main purposes of meta-analyses is to summate multiple studies that may have insufficient statistical power in isolation to find a significant effect, but when summated they do. I _think_ you're trying to suggest that the insignificant individual event types aren't contributing to the significant findings on the combined event endpoint, so we should ignore the GRADE quality of those (correct me if I'm wrong). But that's not how meta analysis functions - those events are also contributing to the significant finding on that endpoint (which is also why the GRADE quality of the combined endpoint is moderate). They just aren't significant _in isolation_.
        riku_iki 2y ago
        > How would that affect the inference being made here? to me, it looks like several rows clearly don't add up in key findings table(they derive "moderate quality" conclusions from "very low quality" observations), which makes whole publication as data astrology quality.
        2y ago

KempyKolibri 2y ago

I don’t believe saturated fat is evil. I believe that consuming more than 10%E from SFA increases risk of CVD, and replacing SFA with PUFA reduces risk of CVD. And yes, that is my citation in support of that claim. Quote: “There was a 17% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA” and “When we subgrouped according to replacement for SFA, the PUFA replacement group suggested a 21% reduction in cardiovascular events” I explain why the null findings on insensitive endpoints aren’t the gotcha some people think they are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41960046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41960046

riku_iki 2y ago
> There was a 17% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA they have table with breakdown of events by type, and in both rows with significant reduction it says that quality of evidence is "very low".
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  Don’t know where you’re seeing that. Combined cardiovascular events has an RR of 0.83 and the GRADE quality is moderate, not very low.
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    Yes, and I am talking about subtypes of events in the "summary of findings" table. Those subtypes with "moderate" quality has very insignificant diff in # of events. Those with significant diff in # of events have "very low" quality of evidence.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - KempyKolibri 2y ago
      How would that affect the inference being made here? That is, the claim being made is with regard to combined cardiovascular events. This effect is significant and the GRADE quality is moderate. One of the main purposes of meta-analyses is to summate multiple studies that may have insufficient statistical power in isolation to find a significant effect, but when summated they do. I _think_ you're trying to suggest that the insignificant individual event types aren't contributing to the significant findings on the combined event endpoint, so we should ignore the GRADE quality of those (correct me if I'm wrong). But that's not how meta analysis functions - those events are also contributing to the significant finding on that endpoint (which is also why the GRADE quality of the combined endpoint is moderate). They just aren't significant _in isolation_.
      - riku_iki 2y ago
        > How would that affect the inference being made here? to me, it looks like several rows clearly don't add up in key findings table(they derive "moderate quality" conclusions from "very low quality" observations), which makes whole publication as data astrology quality.
        2y ago